Why God Must Be Our Foundation

Why God Must Be Our Foundation
by Mark Anderson, Columnist

July 1, 2002

We hear people professing to have it all the time; in newspapers, on television, on college campuses and at social gatherings. If it doesn't exist, then it also does exist - as it then couldn't be true that it doesn't exist. I am talking about truth. Everybody, regardless of their view on truth, makes some claim on absolute truth.

Somebody who says that we can't possibly know what is true is claiming to know that it is true that we can't know what is true. If somebody were to say that there is no absolute truth, that would also be an inherent contradiction. To say there is no absolute truth is asserting an absolute truth. When an atheist says that there is no God they are asserting an absolute truth. Everybody, regardless of their ideological persuasion, asserts absolute truths. Often times I hear non-Christians judging Christians for the behavior of judging behaviors. Often times I hear non-Christians preaching about the virtues of not preaching. Not only are those inherent contradictions in and of themselves, but the non-Christians are also claiming a truth in both cases. In one case they are saying that it is true that Christians are judgmental. In the other case they are claiming that it is true that Christians shouldn't preach.

The laws of logic give us the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction tells us that A can't be both A and non-A. In other words, two contradictory ideas can't possibly both be true. Your computer can't be both on and off right now. This applies to everything. Another example: Christianity and, say, atheism can't both be true. If one is true, then the other is false, or else both are false.

In fact, nobody can logically dispute the statement that two contradictory ideas can't both be true. To do so would be asserting that it is true that two contradictory ideas can both be true. If it is true that two contradictory ideas can both be true, then it must also be true that the very statement that two contradictory ideas can both be true is also false.

So now I have established that everybody makes a claim on truth, that there must be truth, and that truth is exclusive. There is only one truth for everything.

But what makes anybody's "truth" more true than anybody else's? How can there be truth without God? If there is no God, then we ourselves are the authors of our own "truths." If we ourselves are the authors of our own "truths," then truth is relative. If truth is relative, then there is no real truth. If there is no real truth, then it can't be true that truth is relative and that there is no real truth. More inherent contradictions.

Let me give you a hypothetical illustration. Let us pretend that there is no God. This means that we ourselves define "sin." Now take the tragic events of September 11. If I say that it was wrong what the hijackers did - which I am sure there would be a consensus on - on what basis can I say that it is true that what they did was wrong (sin)? If there is no God, then I would be saying that based on what I, I, I, I, I believe. But if I can author truth, then so can everybody else. This means that If I make an argument based on my "truths," instead of God's truths, then I actually give license to the exact opposite idea. By suggesting that I can author "truth," I am, at the same time, saying that everybody else can author "truth." This means that my own argument justifies the statement that the hijackers were not wrong. I would be saying, in essence, that "truth" is whatever each person believes it to be. I cannot logically argue that anything is wrong.

One counter argument to the above argument that I hear a lot is that, "We have a codified law that tells us what is wrong." This is really a fallacious argument. Governmental law is merely an expression of somebody's, or a group of people's, beliefs. This brings us back to the initial question of what makes anybody's "truth" more true than anybody else's? Also, to say that truth is derived from man's law would also make truth relative because man's law is arbitrary. That is a very slippery slope to be on. This means that if child molestation is legalized, then it isn't wrong. Furthermore, if truth is derived from man's law, then where did man get the truth from in order to write the law in the first place?

I am sure some people are sitting there thinking, "But how can we really know God's truth? That is so arrogant to suggest that you can actually know what God thinks." This is also fallacious. By saying that we can't know the attributes of God, then you would actually be claiming to know an attribute of God. You would be claiming that you know enough about God to know that we can't know about God.

In all things we do, we must be seeking God's guidance. Whether it is in family life or political affairs, in order to make any logical argument it must be based on God's truth - the only truth. God did not intend for us to go through life lost and confused. That is precisely why He wrote a book - the Bible. ***

Click Here for Mark's Archives

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files